User reviews

I wish I had seen the original Broadway production of Camelot. As a lad the Broadway cast album was a treasured staple in our house, played over and over again by my parents. Can you imagine a cast led by Richard Burton, Julie Andrews and introducing Robert Goulet as Lancelot?

So why couldn't Warner Brothers sign the original cast from Broadway for the movie? Robert Goulet had in fact come to Hollywood and didn't set the world on fire, but the other two were already big box office names by 1967. Julie Andrews had won an Oscar for Mary Poppins and just did the Sound of Music. And Richard Burton was one half of the most noted show business couple of the Sixties with his wife Elizabeth Taylor.

Jack Warner, usually a smart guy, said that he didn't think that anyone would believe that two guys like Arthur and Lancelot would put a kingdom at risk for the love of Mary Poppins. So Julie wasn't even asked and Vanessa Redgrave got the call. She's certainly sexy enough, but she opted for the Rex Harrison talk/sing in doing Guinevere. If you have the video or DVD of Camelot play that and then listen to Julie Andrews sing from the original cast album. My favorite song from the score is I Loved You Once In Silence and Julie Andrews is at her best singing that song. Vanessa doesn't come close.

Ditto for Richard Burton and Richard Harris. Though in the case of Harris I think he was toning it down a mite for a clearly handicapped co-star in the vocal department. Harris later in his life toured extensively in various productions of Camelot as Arthur, virtually taking over the role originated by his close friend Burton.

The biggest hit from the Camelot score was If Ever I Would Leave You, sung by Robert Goulet. In 1961 you couldn't get away from that song being played on the radio right in the midst of all the rock and roll. Goulet also toured in various stock companies of Camelot and like both Burton and Harris revived it on Broadway. I don't think anyone ever asked Franco Nero to tour.

But Redgrave and Nero certainly created their own screen magic, they got involved with each other on the set. But folks this is a musical and musically they don't measure up.

David Hemmings takes over the role of Mordred from Roddy McDowall who did it on stage. His Mordred is a clever schemer, but a coward as well. For myself the best Mordred ever portrayed on screen was in Knights of the Round Table by Stanley Baker. Baker's interpretation of Mordred is light years from Hemmings, he's a schemer, but he's definitely no coward.

I love the score of Camelot and when it was filmed I only wish the singing was half as good as the Broadway show.

Now that movie musicals are in vogue again, maybe somebody at Warner Brothers will give the green light to remake this Lerner & Loewe spectacle that was poorly filmed in 1967.

This version is really a shame, considering how beloved the original 1960 Broadway musical is. Lerner & Loewe wrote some of their best songs for this show: "If Ever I Would Leave You", "Camelot", "What do the Simple Folk Do?" and "Fie on Goodness". But when making the film, producer Jack Warner chose tone-deaf actors, one of the worst directors in the medium, and had Alan J. Lerner rewrite his script, stressing the drama over the comedy (to the narrative's detriment) as well as throwing out half the score (including, sob, the show-stopping "Fie on Goodness"). Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave ARE great actors, and in their dramatic scenes, they are quite effective, but they most certainly are NOT singers, especially poor Ms. Redgrave (although, her orgasmic rendition of "The Lusty Month of May" has to be seen to be believed). Franco Nero, a beautiful, beautiful man, has a great opening with "C'est Moi", but then goes downhill from there. David Hemmings manages to bring some mirth to the film, but he's only in the last third, and by that time it's nearly too late (plus, they cut his only song!).

On the plus side, the film DID deserve the 3 Oscars it won: Best Scoring (if you take the voices out, the music sounds magnificent), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, and Best Costume Design (the flick IS sumptuous). And the cinematography is rather breathtaking at times. (If you do watch it, try to see it on DVD, where it's letterboxed.)

So, if anybody from Warner Brothers, or any other studio for that matter, is reading this, give it another go: go back to T.H. White's original source novel and Lerner's original B'way script, keep ALL the songs intact, and hire actors who are proven singers, say, Ewan McGregor (he demonstrated his pipes in Moulin Rouge!) as Arthur, Kate Winslet (who scored a British top 10 hit last year) as Guinevere, and Hugh Jackman (who got his start in a West End production of Oklahoma!) as Lancelot. Please....

In general I did like "Camelot" but there are a number of flaws that do let down what could have been a spectacular film to what is now a interesting but somewhat mediocre one. Well, starting with the positives, it is sumptuously filmed, with stunning cinematography and lush costumes and sets. The music score is marvellous, beautiful, dramatic, moving, haunting and lots more. Most of the performances are well done, particularly David Hemmings as Mordred who is deliciously devious and even detestable. And it was nice to see the late Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore. The story is tragic and inspiring, the ending is moving and the dialogue is good. However, the film does drag a lot, not only because the pace is disappointingly pedestrian, but Joshua Logan's direction is very stodgy. Also, while Gene Merlino provided the singing voice of Lancelot beautifully, I personally didn't find the singing that great. Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave act convincingly as Arthur and Guinevere, but their singing is flat mostly. As Lancelot Franco Nero is wooden at best, handsome yes, but wooden. All in all, worth watching, but with more secure pacing and a perhaps better director, no offence to Joshua Logan, this could've been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox

There is a great deal of misinformation on this blog concerning Camelot (1967), the film adaptation of the legendary Broadway hit. First, Producer Jack L. Warner had asked stage stars Richard Burton and Julie Andrews to reprise their roles as King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. Both refused. At the time, Burton was co-starring with then wife Elizabeth Taylor in a succession of films (The Taming of the Shew, Faustus, Boom!). Andrews was interested until she was told Burton had refused. She also had a commitment to honor her second picture to 20th Century-Fox (the first was the wildly successful Sound of Music; the second the ill-fated Star!). She did not have the best working relationship with Richard Harris, with whom she had recently co-starred with in the epic Hawaii. Harris hated her in kind.

Camelot did not achieve its legendary hit status until after its director, Moss Hart, had overhauled the musical play long after it had been running. He had suffered a heart attack during the out-of-town tryouts. When the play opened on Broadway in late 1960, the critics were less than kind. While they liked Burton, Andrews & the music, they disliked the second act, when Camelot is under siege by Arthur's illegitimate son, the evil Mordred, and the disclosure of the the queen's infidelity. They did not appreciate the clash in styles, an enjoyable lighthearted first act overtaken by an overly dramatic second act. Hart remedied its faults by tightening the book and eliminating several - though lovely – songs, including Fie on Goodness!, Take Me to the Fair, and Before I Gaze at You Again. The show's hit status was also elevated by its best-selling cast recording, one of the most pleasing ever produced. An appearance by Julie Andrews and Richard Burton on the Ed Sullivan Show, singing Camelot and What Do the Simple Folk Do?, in full costume, helped the box-office sales, too.

Camelot, the motion picture, has its strengths, primarily perhaps the best adaptation of any Broadway score in the history of motion pictures. Musical Director Alfred Newman and his choral associate, Ken Darby, richly deserved their Academy Awards for their work. The costume, production design and art direction are also Oscar worthy. Beyond that, let there be silence.

Richard Harris overacts. Mon Dieu, what a ham! He sings acceptably, but overdoes the lyrics considerably with his e-nun-ci-a-tion, especially the title song. As others have noted, the blue eye shadow and ugly wig do not help. Visuals aside, his Arthur renders on the effeminate.

Franco Nero is handsome but can't act his way out of a paper bag. Stiff and wooden, his Italian accent is incongruous with his dubbed musical vocals.

Vanessa Redgrave, of the three co-stars, comes off best. Although not a true singer, her songs are passable. Her acting is laudable. She is beautiful, convincingly regal and winning in most her scenes. Her reaction to Lance's bringing the knight back to life is touching and real. She must have ignored direction from the director at times (thankfully for us), otherwise she would not have been as effective.

Under the sledgehammer, heavy handed direction by Joshua Logan, this film fails on every dramatic level. He has his actors amplify every single syllable and nuance – in extreme close up! Did he not watch his own daily rushes during filming? This is the same director who managed to wreck South Pacific (1958) and would go on to ruin another musical, Lerner and Loewe's Paint Your Wagon (1969). It was Logan – not Warner –who remarked, "Can you see two men and two countries going to war over Julie Andrews?"

I liked the look of this film. I liked Richard Harris as Arthur because he has the look of a medieval king. Vanessa Redgrave is a more formidable Guinevere, and Franco Nero is quite stunning to look at. But they are right. They are not singers. They are not very good weak singers (does that make sense). Now I never really bought into Julie Andrews as Guinevere in the music from the Original Cast, and I don't see her as a strong woman my mind's eye. But I do agree, it's time to take a big budget crack at this again. Imagine the pageantry that would be possible now and some of the wonderful musical talents to draw from. Back to the story. This is a touching story of a man who liked the battles but not the rule. He is forced into a marriage and then falls in love. However, the magical Lancelot steals her heart and things go sour. Arthur is left alone on the battlefield, and Camelot is only a memory. Great story...poor execution.

a fine atmospherc sreen adaptation of lerner and loewe's classic. Richard Harris is quite simply magnificent as arthur,the best actor to play the role on stage or screen. redgrave is compelling,although julie andrews singing is sorely missed. the film adds more of a tragic feel,not like the original broadway version which had more humor. lerner himself rewrote his stage production after the film screenplay. franco nero is mis cast as lance ,even his dialoge was dubbed!! but david hemmings comes across quite well as mordred, too bad his song (along with 5 others) was cut. yes, at times it gets a bit long but its well worth it for the final inspiring scene when arthur passes on the camelot story to young tom of warwick. Harris is at the heart of this film and he keeps you glued to the screen.

The legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table has endured for centuries, and has inspired many movies. One of them is the musical "Camelot," based on the stage production by Lerner and Loewe. Richard Harris stars as King Arthur, with Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Guinevere and Franco Nero as Sir Lancelot. The story follows the classic legend, Arthur creating the perfect land of Camelot, but suffering betrayal by his queen and favorite knight. The eyes are presented with a lavish sight of dazzling scenery, lush locations and beautiful costumes. There are memorable songs, such as "If Ever I Should Leave You," "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" and of course, "Camelot." This epic offers a lot for both the eyes and the ears.

There are not many perfect movies but CAMELOT is one of them. I have seen CAMELOT many many times and it only gets better with age. I first saw it in 1967 when it was released. It was the first film to make me cry. I'm a guy so that's tough to admit. When King Arthur (Richard Harris) sings the line "Each evening from December to December before you sleep upon your cot think back on all the tales that you remember of Camelot.." there was just no holding back. I sobbed like a baby. Of course it is pure fantasy but that's the point. For "one brief shining moment" maybe there was a perfect world somewhere before it all came crashing down. And this is such a beautiful looking movie with such beautiful music and beautiful people I'll never understand why it wasn't a smash hit. The people that don't like this film must not have any kind of heart. In fact I wonder if they are even alive. I would call CAMELOT the ultimate movie experience. If there is a better movie that is as splendid escapism as this one I haven't found it. CAMELOT makes me appreciate my life. It makes me realize somehow that it is life itself that is joy and we need to enjoy every little tiny part of it because tomorrow may bring it to an end. You simply MUST see CAMELOT. It will enlighten you. It will make you cry but you will be smiling at the same time.

By the late 60's, musicals might have still be thriving on Broadway, but movie musicals weren't doing the bang up business at the box office that they used to. Many of these movie musicals, though flawed, were simply victims of time. In the case of Camelot's infamous failure, it has as much to do with the time period when it was released as it does with the lousy, overlong, bloated, neverending script.

You'd be a fool to say the score of Camelot is a dud. Far from it. It's filled with lively, memorable, and hauntingly beautiful tunes - easily some of the best and brightest that Broadway has ever inspired. Some of these songs hold up well on film, but a majority don't, especially with sandwiched between seemingly endless, talky book scenes that feel like a bunch of blabber.

The cast, while not exactly ready for recording contracts, don't massacre the score completely. Richard Harris, though wearing eyeliner and eyeshadow for some ungodly reason, handles the score fine. Then again, it was written for Richard Burton who had a Rex Harrison-style of singing. Vanessa Redgrave doesn't have Julie Andrews' beautiful soprano, but with a few key changes, she sounds pleasant enough. Franco Nero must have really been awful, because he's dubbed completely.

The first 30 minutes or so move along at a decent enough pace and, right as you're about to really get into it, it slows to a crawl and never recovers. By the time the Intermission title card came up, it dawned on me that I wasn't even half way through the film and the very idea that there was over half the film left made me sick to my stomach. The only compelling thing Camelot has going for it in its last half is the chemistry between Redgrave and Nero (who'd end up becoming a couple after this film and are still together to this date).

CAMELOT is, of course, the story of King Arthur (Richard Harris), his Queen, Guenevere (Vanessa Redgrave), and Sir Lancelot (Franco Nero), the best and brightest knight of Arthur's treasured Round Table. To Arthur's infinite sorrow, his queen and love falls hard--irrevocably so--for his friend and ally, and he is forced to choose between indulging the hatred that overwhelms him as a man, and the nobility that accompanies his stature as a king. Choosing the latter, Arthur must live with the whispers of 'poison in the court' as the other knights bristle at Lancelot's stolen kisses with Guenevere. All this while the king clings to his flame of hope, the idea of establishing a civil court to establish law and order where once there was violence and bloodshed. When Arthur's illegitimate son Mordred (David Hemmings) devises a plan to get Arthur out of the castle and the knights into Guenevere's room to trap the clandestine lovers, 'Jenny' and 'Lance' are found out... even as they're pledging to part in order to honour their love and loyalty to Arthur. The eventual demise of each of the three main characters, which I'm emphatically *not* going to reveal but you might suspect anyway if you know any Arthurian folklore, is heartrending and quite well played-out.

'Tis a tale rich in ironies, this tale of Camelot, and in the end a story about two ideas--that of an ideal i.e. the peaceful lawful Camelot as envisioned by Arthur, and that of love. Neither are 'real' in the sense of being tangible, can't be seen or felt or heard, and yet both are worth fighting to the death for. They can bring a king to his knees, but they can also make heroes of men. It's a shame that the film doesn't do handle this too well; whenever it sets out to do so, it becomes a tad overdone. Take for example the quandary Arthur finds himself in--should he turn a blind eye to the adulterous pair's trysts? Arthur's dilemma is expressed by a soliloquy superbly delivered by Harris. It's a great piece of acting and a solid writing job--it's just not something that works on film, even in a musical (when one is more inclined to accepting an actor directly addressing or serenading the camera than with other film genres). The point is made *too* overtly, and the film and characters suffer as a result.

It probably isn't helped by the fact that the majority of the lush, beautiful shots in the film (see the 'Lusty Month Of May' number) are marred by some equally jarring shots that seem completely out of place, or just wrong. During the montage of shots to Nero's solo 'If Ever I Would Leave You', there is one sequence in which Guenevere enters Lancelot's room--it would make a perfectly lovely shot if done in an understated fashion, making the point that it is Guenevere who comes to Lancelot and not (always) the other way around. Unfortunately, in an attempt to create 'romance' (something that doesn't need overt manufacturing if the actors are capable of generating that atmosphere sans special effects), both actors are subjected to a wind machine, and end up looking like the melodramatic lover-idiots of a Mills & Boon dramatisation. Arthur's chat with young Tom as well is great in the conception, and suffers in the execution--something is lacking from that scene (I think the ability to underact by Gary Marsh as the boy), and it spoils what would otherwise be a great message and ending. (The too many 'Run, boy, run!'s also wears on the nerves after a while.) CAMELOT is caught uncomfortably between being a stage production and a film, and that shows in how it rigidly keeps to the 'Overture/Intermission/Entr'Acte/Ending Music' structure... while *annoucing* it with captions!

Whatever problems there might be with direction and execution, however, there can be no faulting of the score and songs written with the distinctive stamp of songwriting team Lerner and Loewe. Every song has its own charm, but I particularly enjoyed 'Camelot' (a sweet and fitting theme tune for the love between Arthur and Guenevere, and Arthur and his kingdom); 'Then You May Take Me To The Fair' (Guenevere's deviousness put to glorious song); and 'If Ever I Would Love You' (with smashing lyrics but spoilt somewhat by Nero). The actors, or at least the two leads Harris and Redgrave, do a creditable job by these songs... Harris in particular. He is consummately King Arthur, the vulnerable man and the noble king, and he brings the character off (dodgy blue eyeshadow or no!). The role of Guenevere is a tough one to make sympathetic, and even now I don't know whether I like her... but I do know that Redgrave did as good a job as can be expected with a woman who falls *instantly*( in love with her husband's best friend after trying her best to get him killed in (not one but three!) jousts. Neither Harris nor Redgrave are singers by profession, and it's rather a shame that Julie Andrews (who created the role of Guenevere on Broadway) didn't reprise her role for the film, but neither of them hinder the beauty of the Lerner/Loewe music. I'm afraid the same can't be said of Nero, whom I thought annoying as the puffed-up prat Lancelot. Watch and you'll notice that he emotes, in between a bad attempt at a French accent, by flaring his nostrils. Hardly attractive, especially in close-up!

CAMELOT is far from a perfect film or even a perfect musical. (That adjective can probably be applied only to the score, and that has nothing specifically to do with the film.) It would have been interesting to see it onstage, or to have the main Broadway cast reprise their roles in this version--yet the film *does* have its own quaint charm. The costumes are breathtaking, for certain, and Harris really works very very hard at trying to make the film one worth seeing. For his performance, despite the rest of the film and the uneven writing for his character, it almost *is* worth it. And I cannot deny that the ending still made me cry. So don't take it from me alone that CAMELOT isn't a great film--there *are* many things about it to like. But be warned that liking it, as I do, doesn't translate into loving it. 7.5/10

Beautiful music and strong performances from Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave, however they are not singers and it hurts the picture mightily, leaving you wondering how much better it could have been with Richard Burton, Robert Goulet and especially Julie Andrews. True Burton wasn't a singer either using the talk singing method that Rex Harrison employed on My Fair Lady so Harris' replacement isn't as glaring as Redgrave/Andrews or Nero/Goulet. Where the picture really runs into problems through is the lumbering pace set by director Logan. A fine director of drama but with no skill at setting the right tone for a musical although that didn't stop the studios from handing him several throughout the years ending with the disaster of Paint Your Wagon. Some of the costumes are truly amazing and justly famous but this can be a trial to sit through.

In Medieval England, a despondent King Arthur meets mentor Merlin - with wisdom confirmed by the presence of an owl perched upon his shoulder - in the forest. This leads to a flashback where castle "Camelot" figures prominently… Richard Harris (as Arthur) meets and marries Vanessa Redgrave (as Guenevere). They are blissfully happy, but she and newly knighted Franco Nero (as Lancelot) are unable to control their mutual attraction… The best thing about this film is the superb music, by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe. But the best way to enjoy it is by obtaining a copy of the soundtrack featuring Richard Burton (as Arthur), Julie Andrews (as Guenevere), and Robert Goulet (as Lancelot) - the stars of the original Broadway cast...

The last time Jack Warner corralled a musical team was for the film version of "My Fair Lady" (1964). At that time, the studio passed on Ms. Andrews reprising her stage success because she was "not bankable." In both 1966 and 1967, Andrews was the undisputed #1 box office star in the world; in both years, she topped the annual "Quigley Publications" poll, with Mr. Burton also in the top ten. So, the story was changed to Andrews not being "sexy" enough. That the documented rapport between Andrews and her male co-stars in musicals (especially "Camelot") was unknown to filmmakers rings false; this isn't "Camille", it's a musical. Andrews, Burton and original "Camelot" residents like Roddy McDowall, Robert Coote and David Hurst are sorely missed.

***** Camelot (10/25/67) Joshua Logan ~ Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, Franco Nero, David Hemmings

One of the reviews I once read of this marvellous film dismissed it as 'kohl and overacting'. No way. It has so many scenes that live in the memory as I write, not having revisited the movie for quite some time. The wedding sequence with all its lights; Guinevere, beautiful in her wonder of the magical land where leaves 'blow away altogether, at night, of course'; If Ever I Should Leave You (not sung by Franco Nero, as I understand, really, but you'd never guess); How To Handle A Woman ('what's wrong, Jenny? where are you these days? I don't understand you ...'); creepy Mordred; and the ending (run, boy, run) which is terrific. I have heard Burton as Arthur and have to say I was disappointed. They made the right casting choice for the movie. A pity some of the songs got cut (except it would have been even longer then, good for us who like it, intolerable for those who don't). Also interesting to compare with other Lerner/Loewe movies with their themes of magic, understanding, and change (My Fair Lady, Brigadoon, Gigi and Paint Your Wagon). As they sit together as a body, Camelot is one of the best.

CAMELOT (3+ outta 5 stars) I've heard for years how bad this movie version of the hit musical was supposed to have been... so I was never really in a hurry to see it... much as I admire the work of Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, Franco Nero and the rest of the cast. Finally I decided to take the plunge... and found the movie to be not too bad at all. Yes, some of the musical arrangements sound a little stale... the activity on the screen doesn't seem to expand much beyond what one would have seen on the stage... and there may be an over-reliance on extreme close-ups of the stars... but the movie still moves along at a brisk pace (even at 3 hours the movie doesn't seem overly long) and there is a lot to appreciate. The three leads have seldom looked more attractive on screen (you can see why Redgrave and Nero engaged in a torrid love affair of their own soon after filming). Richard Harris is in fine voice and form... but when he is EVER not worth watching? Franco Nero's accent is a little off-putting at first... his voice reminded me of Mandy Patinkin in "The Princess Bride", of all things! (I wonder if Patinkin modeled his vocal inflections after Nero?) The movie isn't really big on action scenes... though there is a rousing escape scene at one point... and a clamorous rescue scene. I wouldn't say every song in the score was a winner... but the clunkers seem to be over with soon enough... and the good songs more than make up for the duds. Maybe not the best version of the Arthurian saga ever... but definitely worth a look.

Film of a HUGE Broadway hit. King Arthur (Richard Harris) is married to the beautiful Guenevere (Vanessa Redgrave. Then she meets hunky Lancelot (Franco Nero) and starts an affair with him. Then Modred (David Hemmings) the half-son of Arthur pops up to steal the throne from him.

I never saw the musical on stage so I can't compare. It's a good musical with lavish sets and costumes (both Oscar winners). The songs are good and Harris and Redgrave can sing. Nero was obviously dubbed. All the acting was good but at 3 hours it was far too long. Also they take great liberties with the legend. Still it was entertaining and I liked it.

Whenever I watch Joshua Logan's two final directorial outings, I find myself wondering 'why'. Why direct two musicals that feature actors who either cannot sing (such as Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood in "Paint Your Wagon"), can sing but really aren't known for it nor are great singers (Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave in "Camelot") or have to be dubbed because they simply don't speak the language (with the Italian actor, Franco Nero, playing a Frenchman....and is dubbed whenever he sings). It's confounding and I know that much of this also was the fault of the producers....but such casting decisions helped to end Logan's once-distinguished career. I mention all this because no matter how much you like "Camelot", it begins with a few strikes against it.

The story concerns the relationship between King Arthur, his wife and the knight, Lancelot....and how it ultimately destroys Camelot and the kingdom. And, since the stories about Arthur are fictional, you can't fault the writers for taking a few liberties with older versions of the life of Arthur.

On the positive side, the film looks gorgeous and it's obvious the studio spent a lot of money to make the picture look amazing. The same can be said of the songs...which are quite memorable.

On the negative, the story is overlong. While I like long films, they need to maintain momentum and that was an occasional problem with this film. Losing a few songs might have, in hindsight, been a good idea.

Additionally, as I aluded to above, the singing wasn't bad but you expect more from a musical. For such a lavish film, I would have expected actors who were great singers.

Overall, this is a lovely looking film that occasionally bores and whose singing should have been a bit better. A very mixed bag.

Camelot (1967) is a movie I recently watched on HBOMAX. The storyline follows King Arthur's rise to power, the creation of the knights of the round table, his marriage to Guinevere, her affair with Lancelot and the ultimate demise of the round table. This movie is directed by Joshua Logan (Picnic) and stars Richard Harris (Gladiator), Vanessa Redgrave (Atonement), Franco Nero (Django) and David Hemmings (Barbarella). There's so much to like about this film - the cast delivers solid performances, the settings are beautiful, the cinematography is solid, the props and accessories are excellent and I loved the lighting. The storyline does drag at times, but big picture it was entertaining. I didn't love the songs and they seemed a bit dated and awkward at times. The conclusion and closing remarks are excellent and the perfect way to conclude this marathon. Overall this is an average to slightly above average film that's only worth watching if you have the patience. I'd score this a 6/10.

Expensive pomp and pageantry with somewhat of a tin ear. King Arthur of England knights prodigious jouster Lancelot, who has seemingly brought his deceased opponent back to life, vaguely aware that wife Lady Guenevere has fallen in love with the handsome hero; meanwhile, Arthur's illegitimate son Mordred schemes to bring down the fellowship of the Round Table. Lerner & Loewe's Tony-winning Broadway musical, adapted from T.H. White's book "The Once and Future King", feels heavy-hearted on the screen, weighted down with ornate songs (unevenly performed) and endless talk. The production is certainly an eyeful, but the (nearly) three-hour running time works against the film--it is just too long and lumbering. Vanessa Redgrave (with a whopper-crop of hair) enacts Guenevere with a slight sneer and a faraway look in her eyes; Richard Harris doesn't create romantic sparks with her, though he does fine with his soliloquies and wears his crown well. Franco Nero remains the biggest casting question-mark as Sir Lancelot...and his singing is by far the most painful. The passion of a sweeping epic is noticeably absent, however there are moments in the picture which do work, aided by the lovely choral orchestrations and the editing in the montages. ** from ****

I really like the music in this film, it is very relaxing to listen to and Richard Harris played a good King Arthur. but he could not see the affair that Guenivere and Lancelot was having!!! I felt like shouting Arthur, look at your wife and our queen, she is being unfaithful to you. the scenery is very nice especially the winter snow. my dad took my mother to see this film, when it was released in 1967. And she bought the L.P. as well. One word of warning, there are a lot of versions of the musical soundtrack. Always go for the Original Soundtrack on the WB label! this is the best version! with music conducted by Alfred Newman! you see a picture on the rear sleeve of the main cast members Singing, and Alfred is seen conducting with his baton! that is the original L.P. you are holding in your hand! if you do not see all that info, then you have a cover version that copy is no good! I like the original version! you can get this film on DVD now! and the CD of the music from all good stores.

Today one would want to see this film for the talents of Richard Harris, Lionel Jeffries, Vanessa Redgrave, Laurence Naismith, and David Hemmings in the heyday of their careers. Franco Nero plays a very handsome Lancelot. The delightful music too is a plus. This was one of the last old fashioned blockbusters in its production. One wonders why at time it drags. I liked it as a child, and I like it as an old movie buff.